Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > The contents of the draft are a valuable set of observations worthy of use > when building operational considerations in documents that require them. > However, it leans rather more to "you touched something, now include this > giant block of text and comment on why things are, or are not, needed".
> My concerns would be alleviated by not having this as a "requirement".
I sympathise; I think that rathe rather than some block being required, we
just need the section to exist, to minimally say, "We thought about this, but
at this point, we are doing nothing"
> My concerns are significantly motivated by the fact that every time a
"patch"
> RFC for a given subject I work on hits the IESG there's a desire to
> RELITIGATE the presence or absence of such considerations in the
particular
emphasis mine.
> patch document, or the thoroughness or lack thereof in the base document
that
> is being augmented and has been deployed for years.
Yes. It would be nice if the IESG could find a better way.
I think that we need a better articulated process for -bis documents.
In particular, it triples the amount of work that a -bis document does,
even if it's a PS->IS document... where we really aren't supposed to change
much.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
